In January 2006 Uncommonly Dense was resurrected, with DaveTard pulling the cord on the moderation guillotine. He also introduced a new convention in these exchanges. If posting ALL CAPS is tantamount to shouting, DaveTard's boldface interjections directly into others' posts is tantamount to commentary from a loudspeaker in the ceiling.

By popular demand this blog is back in operation, though with only limited participation in the future from me. Past contributors to this blog have decided they are willing to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining this blog, namely, DaveScot, Bombadill, Crandaddy, and Gumpngreen. Unlike in the past, when they were limited to commenting on my postings, they now have full posting privileges. They will be in charge of the day-to-day business of this blog, everything from keeping it interesting to approving comments to booting recalcitrant commenters. Of these four, DaveScot has been the designated blogczar - the buck stops with him.

KeithSI haven't seen any empirical evidence of the supernatural yet so I fail to see why it should come up in any discussion unless of course it's merely being used to further a personal/political agenda. When I do see empirical evidence of the supernatural I'll let you know. I expect you'll return the courtesy. Not a single thing yet discovered about the nature of life requires a designer to break any laws of physics in its design or implimentation. There are almost assuredly artificial structures in the machinery of life but no supernatural structures or supernatural mechanisms required to create said artifices.

You evidently acknowledge this but are unwilling to divorce the supernatural from ID and insist that ID must take on the question of who designed the designer. That question is a strawman. ID (at least Dembski's latest, most refined works) is about design detection, not designer characterization. Please either restrict your arguments to design detection and take your arguments about the nature of the designer somewhere else. This is your final warning about harping on supernatural designers.

And now, a Very Special Moment: DaveTard's first ban. He takes out Keiths, which arouses protests that would never make it to the light of day today:

40DaveScot01/09/20068:13 am

keiths is no longer with us.

43johnnyb01/09/20062:24 pm

Why was keiths kicked?

44Feederbottom01/09/20062:55 pm

Keiths was booted for disagreeing with DaveScot and supplying the evidence to back it up. Heil DaveScot!

45Feederbottom01/09/20062:59 pm

This blog is a sham.

Crandaddy to the rescue!

46crandaddy01/09/20063:39 pm

In Dave's defense, it does not logically follow that because nature bears marks which we recognize as being attributable to intelligence, a supernatural entity must be responsible for them. Keith was given a fair warning.

Couple days later, DaveTard sharpens his knives and pounds his chest:

7DaveScot01/06/20061:35 pmMr. ChristopherQuestioning Perry's motives as mere political maneuvering is dissing someone I respect. Your opinion is noted and if you insist on having the last word I'll make sure that was indeed your last word here. Consider yourself warned.

24DaveScot01/08/200611:05 am

I want this body count nonsense to stop. This is your final warning. If you try to get in a last word on this you're out of here. The same goes for Keith.

Josh wrote a flaming comment to me after being warned to drop the body count rhetoric. I deleted the flame and the flamer

And now time out for another classic:

Quote

8 January 2006Reminder to Stay On MessageDaveScot

This applies to everyone writing articles as well as writing comments. Professor Dembski excepted of course.

The topic and purpose of this weblog is to instruct and promote the intelligent design work of Bill Dembski in particular and the ID movement in general. We are trying to convince that world that ID is based on math, science, and logic. While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion. I consider atheism to be a contrarian religion and ID offends them as one might expect of anything that pleases the faithful. If you want a soapbox for your favorite religion (including atheism) go somewhere else. I realize that it's hard to divorce our innermost faith from our writing and will try to tolerate a generous amount of spillage but the bottom line is if you're warned to ease up, ease up or the axe will fall. Professor Dembski advised me to be ruthless in policing this blog. I'd naively hoped it wouldn't come to that but as usual he was right. Stay on topic. Feel free to tell me I'm off topic if I wander but don't expect me to ban myself if I don't.

Yet another innovation in conversation control:

12DaveScot01/09/20063:11 amKeithSComments are now closed on this thread.

And another. Mr. Christopher's banning, which occurred not for comments made on UD, but for comments made elsewhere on the intertubes, gets its OWN TOPIC. Jealous?

I'm pretty confused by all this, DT. Morals are always going to be subject to agreement between individuals. Thus there's really no such thing as absolute morals. The closest you can get is unanimous consensus amongst some arbitrary number of agreeable individuals. They can claim their knowledge is absolute but it's still just a claim backed by nothing more than consensus.

DaveScot:I am assuming, then, that my questions above count as trolling?Some of them were okay but you're in time out until you stop flooding the blog with so many comments. Come back in a couple of days and slow it down. I promise the blog will still be here and evolution will still be the biggest hoax in the history of science.

(This is gonna get complicated because bannings may now occur in bold face, embedded in others' comments by means of the loudspeaker in the ceiling.)

Maybe something to do with it only being up for 12 hours.Might also be that it's rubbish hardly worth a comment.In any case, that's your first comment to be approved on Uncommon Descent and if you don't have anything more constructive to say it's going to be your last.

I'm a bit aghast that some people here and elsewhere are offended that I will moderate commenters based on their behavior outside the Uncommon Descent blog.

To wit, a number of commenters that have appeared here recently, while behaving reasonably here, are elsewhere gratuitously bashing Uncommon Descent, its founder Professor Dembski, Intelligent Design, and other sundry aspersions cast our way. Then these ill mannered children whose parents obviously were negligent in instilling basic manners into them are offended when I discover their extra-curricular activities and invite them to leave Uncommon Descent.In my opinion this is like someone in the real world that talks behind your back and then expects you to invite them into your home like cherished friends. I can't imagine that upon being disinvited for this they would come to you and say But I never said any bad things to your face! Why are you treating me this way??

Goodness gracious. Do we really have to refer this to Miss Manners for a definitive judgement? I think not.

For some reason one of my posts keep being deleted. I don't think I am rude or something in the post, so I will try again. If the post is not acceptable, could the person deleting it please state his reasons? Thank you.

If you have something new it gets a hearing. If it's something old it's subject to deletion. Repeat it elsewhere. Also, nobody here needs to have the scientific method repeated to them like they're morons who never heard it before. As I recall the scientific method is introduced in the sixth grade. If that's the best you have to offer you should probably move along to Panda's Thumb where they never tire of hearing 6th grade science lectures. -ds

ET itself does not promote atheism.Understanding it to be an unguided, unplanned process, as the Wiesel 38 wrote for posterity to the Kansas BoE, certainly DOES promote atheism. Is there some part of unguided/unplanned that you don't understand specifically excludes guidance/planning and specifically excluding guidance/planning specifically excludes a guider/planner?

You're treading on thin ice. Answer correctly or I'm tossing you out.

Time out for a another classic. Remember DaveTard warning UD to stick with the science, and science unquestionably indicates common descent?

I have consistently argued that intelligent design neither rules out the common descent of life on Earth (Darwin's single Tree of Life) nor restricts the implementation of design to common descent, as if that were the only possible geometry for the large-scale relationships of organisms. Thus, with regard to this forum, the truth or falsity of common descent is an open question worthy of informed discussion.To open up Uncommon Descent in this way reflects not just the ID community's diversity of views on this topic but also the growing doubts about common descent outside that community. For instance, W. Ford Doolittle rejects a single Tree of Life? and argues instead for an intricate network of gene sharing events. Likewise, Carl Woese, a leader in molecular phylogenetics, argues that the data support multiple, independent origins of organisms.

In short, it is not just ID advocates who are suggesting that there is no universal common ancestor.

Holy shit. That was just January. February gets off with a bang: A one post banning:

Now I have a question for you. Why did I have to give you this information when it's freely available on the internet with a simple google? I'm not here to do your homework for you. Next time you question me I expect you to have done a little reseach youself first or you'll be asking questions on a different blog.

Phed, you're not fitting in well here. I think it's time for you to bother a different blog.

Thanks for all the fish. -ds

Note for Phed. I can see the email address you used to register at UD and knew you were Faid on ATBC since you began commenting here. Even knowing your duplicity I tried to give you a chance. You got the axe for being terminally stupid. Don't flatter yourself or your playmates into thinking it was because your arguments were too good. Thanks for laughs though! I'm glad you found a circus where you and clowns like you can feel good about yourselves through mutual back patting. -ds

JimWynne, You don't have quite the right spirit for our group. Go in peace, but go. -WmAD

Tina Brewer finally gets cut (but she seems eternal):

36tinabrewer03/30/200610:54 am

avocationist: hurray! thank you for your beautiful statement of the absolute blasphemy contained in the notion that God, in his majesty and justice, demanded the bloody torture and murder of his only Son in order to satisfy his bloodlust

I was unaware, but interested to read, that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not teach the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice. Thanks.

You don't understand basic Christian theology if that's what you think. If they followed Christ perfectly they'd be the most loving, charitable, tolerant people imaginable. You need to go away and come back when you're not a stupid troll. -ds

Equivocation deleted. Answer the question. What examples do you put forward that RM+NS is working and what tests were performed to determine that the mutations were truly random? You will not be allowed further participation here until you provide answers. Negative answers along the lines of "I don't have any examples" and/or "No tests were performed" are fine. Then everyone here will know exactly how much real evidence your assertions are based upon. Good luck.

Tony's wrong, you can't carbon date a dinosaur.Tony didn't say you could carbon date dinosaurs. Tony mentioned carbon dating to dispute the general claim that the earth is 6000 years old. You can certainly carbon date things a lot older than 6000 years. I seem to recall asking you to pack your ignorant trash and leave this blog. If I didn't, I did now. Go. Go back to ATBC with the rest of the ignoramuses. -ds

I am unclear whether I should address the math/statistics applicable to biological diversity being generated by RM+NS, or, instead, those applicable to life ever having being initiated to begin with.

I don't see anything constructive to further discussion as you aren't fooling anyone here and I'm sure no one here is going to change your thinking. An hasta la byebye is in order. Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out.-ds

Mr. MusTard does in Dartos with the candlestick in the bedroom:

13Dartos04/12/200610:39 pm

Mr. Scot,If I understand correctly,

Get a clue. And don't show your face around here again until you found one. -ds

I'm running out of naming options for these increasingly sick people. I started out a month ago with Church Burners. Then I had to add Ebola Boys. Church Burning Ebola Boys. Now what - Church Burning Baby Butchering Ebola Boys? That's too long. Too unwieldy. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Holy smokes. The illustrated ban, as dhogaza bites the dust. I had missed that:

1dhogaza04/20/200610:13 am

Yeah, and ID has nothing to do with religion, uh-huh.In case anyone was wondering -ds

Holy shit, another one. This is starting to feel like The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins:

11Jazmine04/21/20066:13 pm

Flip.Flop.FlipFlung -ds

I think this is a banning from the speaker in the ceiling. An ambiguous ban:

Pay attention. That's not what PZ said. He said he would vote against tenure for anyone who *claims* ID is science. They don't have to teach it, they only have to think it. Thanks for playing. You can go back to your own blog now -ds

A comment by Chris_UK has been deleted from this thread (as has his user name). Chris chides our little community for surmising what this book is likely to contain only to interpret its content for us and then treat us to some chestnuts against ID. He is welcome to ply his wares elsewhere.

There is no doubt that Darwin inspired the eugenics movement. Francis Galton the founder the British Eugenics Society, was heavely influenced by Darwin's book, the full title of which is The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Galton once wrote...

Excellent. You've earned your release from the moderation list. -ds

1jpadilla05/15/20062:51 amDon't worry about making a decision to leave this forum. I made that decision for you when you wrote the original nastygram. -dsUpdateYou acted like a spoiled little kid with nasty little mouth so you got treated like one. Now go away, little kids throwing hissy fits aren't welcome here. -ds

It's time for you move along to another blog, John. You've been doing entirely too much regurgitating of trite evolutionist arguments we've all heard a million times and don't care to waste our time refuting yet again. Yesterday I challenged you to provide evidence in support of how the notion that the digitally programmed self-replicating protein factory represented by DNA and ribosomes could self-assemble from inanimate chemical precursers was so strong that it should enjoy exclusivity in the classroom as the only possible way for life on earth to have originated. You declined by saying you were not enough of an expert in evolutionary biology. Well, I'm an expert in digitally programmed machinery and so I know you have no expertise there either so you really have nothing to contribute and are just wasting time and bandwidth by regurgitating things you don't even understand. So kindly find somewhere else to inexpertly pontificate. -ds

...To answer your second question, organisms can't evolve (in a Darwinian sense). That sort of change within an organism is called development.Bob

No Bob, it's called evolution. This isn't an egg turning into a mature organism. It's a vegetative colony happily reproducing asexually. We'll have to agree to disagree. You can go home now. Come back again soon, but not too soon. -ds

I have no idea why you couldn't have looked these things up for yourself and posting uninformed crap is why you're banned. I made an exception to this comment just to make an example out of you. Don't bother responding. -ds

I was curious and so I went back and looked at the last several of DaveScot's posts.

Dr Dembski: You're not doing yourself or the cause of ID any favors by continuing to grant DaveScot a forum to articulate his parochial, right-wing political agenda on a site which has your name and likeness in the banner, and which perports to be about ID.

Thanks...

Well Steve, since you reviewed my articles I thought it fair I review your comments and upon so doing I decided you're not fitting in very well. I think it's time for you to move along. -ds

This is utterly false. Nowhere in the referenced paper does Dyson say that zero-energy waves can impart information.And nowhere in my quote do I say that zero-energy waves impart information - I say that they do in the limit. Let me suggest you read the appropriate chapters in Michael Spivak's calculus book on limits. In the meantime, you're out of here. -WmAD

PS: It is ironic that I have done archaeological work at both locations in the photos (the Olmec head was originally from La Venta, Tabasco Mex, and the first image was from Semmi Valley Ca, specifically part of the Corrigan Movie Ranch park. Bob Hope bought the Corrigan Ranch and subdivided most of it. Various parts were selected for parks based on their scenic and scientific features. The scientific features considered included archaeology.

Gary, you can't even spell Simi Valley much less figure out if you've been there or not. Get lost. -ds

I tolerate bright, thoughtful contrarians and you just don't fit that category. You had no knowledge whatsoever from which to base your statements but you made them anyway. That's not thoughtful. Move along now. -ds

DS,My specious on-line poll reference was in response to turandot's specious on-line poll reference, which I note you did not feel needed any editorial comment. Wonder why?

Wonder no longer. Coulter's Godless is the top seller in non-fiction this week according to Nielsen's and is #3 in all categories. Given her well established popularity the poll Turandot quoted, while not reliable, is probably reasonably accurate. The one you quoted was not. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. If so take it somewhere else. -ds

You're mis-construing the inportance. It's not "we've found a missing link, therefore evolution is proved", but rather "we've found a fossil ancestor that tells us something interesting about how birds evolved".There's a good write-up on Living the Scientific Life.Bob

Wanna see me turn YOU into a missing link? -dt

And now time out for yet another classic:

Quote

33wheatdogg06/20/20069:34 pm

DaveScot -Given your obvious mastery of the finer aspects of gravitational physics, would you care to share with us your credentials and/or background in the field?

Certainly. I'm an autodidact with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests). I had a college level vocabulary at 9 years of age and was reading everything about science I could get my hands on starting a few years before that. I've continued on that course for over 40 years. In my spare time I became a computer design engineer and self-made millionaire. I quit my day job after making my third million (about 6 years ago) so I can concentrate on fun subjects like science that has little or nothing to do with computers (if I can help it), politics, and religion. So basically all the scientific discovery of the last 40 years important enough to make it into the pages of Scientific American I read about at the time it was discovered. For the last 13 years though I've had a broadband connection to the internet and my sources expanded exponentially. For the last 6 years I haven't been burdened with being a computer whiz kid and my time to learn new things has expanded not exponentially but at least doubled or trebled. Any more questions? -ds

Hmm... DaveScot, you said you had broadband for 13 years, and while I'm nowhere as brilliant as you obviously are, I really don't think broadband was available until 1997 - at the extreme earliest - which is.. let me see only 9 years ago. Indeed, in practical terms, broadband wasn't commercially available 'till much later.

I'm certain your error was totally inadvertent.

P.S. Gravity continues to be the weakest force in the universe, with or without broadband availability.

Not inadvertant at all. 13 years ago I was a senior engineer at Dell Computer Corporation where we pioneered using the internet to manage the business, supply chain, and eventually much of our sales. I had a high speed internet connection there in 1993. A few years later, must've been around 1997, I was one of the first 500 people in the city of Austin to get RoadRunner broadband cable modem service in my home - it was their beta test program. Gravity is the strongest force in some situations and it's time for you to take a hike. See ya. -ds

Ho hum. Scientific American is not a "hard science journal". It is a conventional magazine providing a roundup of science news for a scientifically educated readership.

I'm not sure it was worth fishing this out of the spam bin but I thought it might a good way to point out that the picking of semantic nits is about the best you got. Get lost. And stop taking up space in the spam bucket. I'd rather see the thouands of ads for online casinos, low interest loans, and viagra than more of your tripe. Thanks in advance for your courtesy. -ds

18Zachriel06/26/20063:12 pm

I had assumed my comment was in your spam bin and not for general publication. It was meant for your personal edification so that you could quietly correct your misstatement.

There is a significant difference between the philosophical speculation suitable for a column in a magazine and the publication of original research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. That you conflate the two is telling.

ds:I'm not sure it was worth fishing this out of the spam bin but I thought it might a good way to point out that the picking of semantic nits is about the best you got.

Why do questions as to why theistic evolutionists are 'ashamed' of their faith constantly brought up if nearly everyone is not, at least implicitly, assuming that at one level or another God is the designer?

I warned you not to embellish the definition of ID on the sideboard. You did. Go now and find a different blog to bother. -ds

So It looks like "it's designed" is not a robust rationale. At least not for the scientific community.

Maybe it looks designed to you but not to me. I use an example of a digitally programmed protein factory (DNA and ribosome) and you offer me a rock with a couple of square crystals in it as a rejoinder? You're out of here. Go waste someone else's time and bandwidth. -ds

Time out for another classic:

Quote

7DaveScot07/10/20064:56 am

Speaking of Scientific American the peanut gallery at ATBC is raising some questions about why I've variously mentioned reading it for 20, 30, and 40 years.

Here is clarification.

The earliest I recall regularly reading SciAm was in the 7th grade. The school library subscribed to it and I spent a lot of my time at school in the library. That would make it at least 36 years ago that I started reading it every month. I've no doubt rounded that up to 40 years or down to 30 years just because I like round numbers and it doesn't really matter that much. From age 18 to 23 I might not have read it every month as I wasn't in a library much except when required for college assignments and bought it off the newstands. Shortly after I married (at age 24) I began subscribing to it. That was over 20 years ago and I've no doubt mentioned that I've been a subscriber for 20 or 25 years.I missed a few months of it last year in protest over John Rennie's crusade against ID. For the first time in decades I let my subscription lapse and promised to never subscribe to it again. So I told my wife it would make a nice Valentine gift and now she subscribes to it for me so I can have my cake and eat it too. After all, I didn't promise to stop reading it, I only promised to stop subscribing to it.So there.

Here's your second chance to make this thread productive. Stay on topic. Janiebelle has been booted. NEW RULE AT UD: No more bold insertions into existing comments. I've done it as has DaveScot. That's now a thing of the past. One-comment-one-poster is now the rule.

DaveTard's feelings are hurt. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

1DaveScot07/18/20062:10 am

I only have time to go through the comments in the administrative windows which list them in order received on the whole site. I can respond in that window quickly by appending at the bottom of the comment. If I have to drop out of that window to do it another way it will take too much time.

Commenting is what I like doing here. Moderating is a pain that I can do without. If appending my comments directly onto others is too much to ask in return for all the time spent moderating then I'm going to quit moderating. Someone else can do it and I'll just be a regular user once more.

Which I think begs the question: Was DaveTard EVER "regular" at anything?

Now its off to investigate the brain tumor that I've sprouted over the last couple days, reviewing this stuff. Bye!

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

* I hope Keiths feels special for being DT's first ban. That deserves to go on the resume.

* When did Dave switch from DS to DT? Shows he was reading ATBC and trying to show he had a 'sense of humor'.

* I never cease to chuckle at the fact that Josh Bozeman was banned for TOO MUCH god-bothering. Oy.

Splendid job!

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Thanks for the hard work: somebody had to do it, and I'm glad it wasn't me.

Bob

Outstanding! Thank you. You've already done more research and real work than all the DI Fellows combined.

Of course your reward for doing great work, is doing more great work.... I hope you can keep up with the bannings in the future. Fortunately, as interest in ID has waned, so have the posts and bannings at UD and the best case scenario is that you are out of posting material soon.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Can we expect Dave to miss the point utterly and say that RBill is motivated solely by 'sour grapes at not being allowed to post at such a cool blog as UD'?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Oy. You know UD is really thriving when the last six posts there are all from Grandma Bonehead.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Let me add the banning of Febble, a Ph.D. neuroscientist and theist, who argued that based on Dembski's definition of intelligence, the process of random mutations and natural selection is an intelligent process. DaveTard banned her saying

Quote

febble is no longer with us - anyone who doesn’t understand how natural selection works to conserve (or not) genomic information yet insists on writing long winded anti-ID comments filled with errors due to lack of understanding of the basics is just not a constructive member - good luck on your next blog febble

--------------"There are only two ways we know of to make extremely complicated things, one is by engineering, and the other is evolution. And of the two, evolution will make the more complex." - Danny Hillis.

I'm beginning to suspect that Reciprocating Bill is actually SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts. A day after Bill completes documenting six whole months of UD moderation, Roberts has a seizure, foams at the mouth, and takes a fall. Weird symptoms...unless one's just been exposed to a dangerous concentration of tard....

On the subject of cheap liquor, when I was a kid in the late 60's/early 70's in the SF Bay Area, there used to be a chain of grocery stores called 'Brentwood'. One day when I was there with my mom, I noticed that they had a store brand of vodka called, I kid you not, 'Brentnov'.

Even when I was 8 years old, I knew that was horribly, horribly wrong.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I'm just in awe of that post. I'm not surprised that we haven't heard much from Bill since he posted it. He's probably catatonic and disoriented. Bill, give us your address. We will send you cheap liquor and DVDs while you recouperate.

Thank you for your kind words. The bleeding from my ears has almost stopped, and I'm sitting and taking nourishment.

I mostly think we have WAD, DaveTard and the usual suspects to thank for creating such a massively dysfunctional and therefore deliciously entertaining forum. Distill the material a bit and it becomes self-ridiculing.

(Some things just kind of write themselves. That post wasn't one of them.)

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

After all my hard-earned efforts to tardiculate UD and have myself banned there (de facto, de jure, and de Seven Dwarves), I now suffer the indignity of being overlooked in this Canon of the Castaways.

After all my hard-earned efforts to tardiculate UD and have myself banned there (de facto, de jure, and de Seven Dwarves), I now suffer the indignity of being overlooked in this Canon of the Castaways.

Expect to feature unfavourably in my next Snippette...

Dry your eyes, and take note of the dates of the above hall of shame. Seems to me you worked your magical mischief somewhat later. ?

Report of your honorable deeds awaits a final installation of this project, which I plan to write forthwith. Which I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Which is near completion. Which I'd be insane to attempt...

A little over a year ago, DaveScot stepped down from his post as BlogCzar. He was seen cavorting in greener pastures - Janie's titillating blog, in particular.

A few hours later the New UD was born, the loudspeaker was torn from the ceiling, a brief moratorium on commenting was imposed, and the New Look UD ventured forth with the rededication of Lost in Space, season three. No more camp theater for us. Alas, the reform was equally durable.

Max Kirk: I'm afraid I'm not entirely happy what you bring to our discussion, so you're out of here. As for my reference to professed Christians, it was not meant as a slur. By professed Christians, I simply mean Christians who publicly/explicitly acknowledge that they are Christians, I am as much a professed Christian as is Ken Miller.

This thread is now closed. I'm going to have Joel go through this thread and remove anyone who was getting out of line. Since, Farshad, you thought slowness in moderating was something to exploited, you'll be the first to go. WmAD

Houdin, you know perfectly well what a species is. If you can eat a pair of pantihose and live, that does not make you a new species. Also, you know as well as I do that many supercilious but badly informed persons assume that Darwin explained the origin of life. Quit twisting my words. My finger is close to the delete key, but I actually hate to use it. Don't force me.

I wasn't aware there was anything in Wordpress that allowed you to relocate a comment from one thread to another.

Misery loves company:

7William Dembski08/18/20068:41 pm

DaveScot: Glad to see you again. You've done inestimable service for this blog, and your insights have been missed. I've upgraded the account under which you posted this comment to Author, same as Sal. I want to see you posting here again

Sophophile: Two points before you are booted: (1) the burden of proof is on the chance worshippers to show that natural selection has the creative power attributed to it in building, say, molecular machines, we already know that intelligence can build machines, including nanomachines; (2) the issue is not the number of articles or books cited, but their quality and detail in demonstrating that Darwinian paths exist to such systems.Good bye.

Leo, In the interest of keeping the peace, can you hold off on further comments on this thread? Thank you for your participation, even though I disagree. However, I will have to defer to Dr. Davison since this thread is about his work, and he should have some say as to what sort of dicsussion he wishes to entertain regarding his work.

So if you could hold off further comments here, I would appreciate it.thanks,?Salvador

4DaveScot09/06/20067:57 amI wouldn't give you a plugged nickel for all the music and art in the world.

18DaveScot09/07/20064:48 amMusic doesn't give me feeling you describe, nor art, but sometimes natural beauty and inner reflection will cause that response. It's not at all the same pleasure response evoked by food, a bit like sex, and very similar to scalp tingling caused by amphetamines.

...Strangelove and Cogzoid are the same person. Since Cogzoid was banned by Professer Dembski a year ago, and it's been my experience that Bill's decisions in these matters are sound ones, Cogzoid under his new name is no longer with us. Fare thee well, Cogzoid.

ofroIf you had the first clue about pets people keep you'd know how popular small mammals are. Hamsters, guinea pigs, dwarf rabbits, hedgehogs, sugar gliders, chinchillas, and ferrets are a few that come to mind that my kids have had. One of my daughters had a chihuahua the weighed about 3 pounds full grown. You can take it to the bank that an even smaller dog would be very popular. All you have to do is google teacup puppies and you'll get hundreds of thousands of hits.I never said anything about scaring away an intruder. I said a tiny dog would function as a home intrusion alarm while not being loud enough to be a nuisance to neighbors. It doesn't have to be any louder or lower pitched than a wrist watch alarm to perform that function. Pitch is dependent on the length of the vocal cords not the size of the animal. A young girl that masses as much as a large dog has a very high pitched scream in comparison. But that's beside the point as small mammals that have no practical use at all sell well as pets.Given your proclivity for making up facts out of thin air in a desperate attempt to defend your dogmatic chance worshipping worldview and wasting everyone's time in the continual process of correcting you, you're going to have to find another forum for it. Goodbye.

154DaveScot09/14/20065:34 am

On second thought I'm not going to restrict ofro but rather point out that he is an Associate Professor of Physiology at a well known U.S. medical college and obtained his PhD over 30 years ago in Germany. It's enlightening that I was able to box him into an indefensible position regarding the built-in size/weight limitations in the dog genome so easily and such that I had him making up things up like there being no market for tiny dogs and thus no one had tried to breach the 1 kilogram barrier. A simple google that takes just seconds reveals the huge market for the smallest possible dogs and anyone with any exposure to much of the real world knows how popular small mammals are as pets for children. Yet this esteemed professor couldn't be bothered to check the validity of the assertions underpinning his arguments. Why would an otherwise respectable professor do this? Hubris? Unaccustomed to being defied? I don't know. But I do no one thing, it's people like Ofro that have caused me, over the decades, to have no intellectual respect for any professor until they've demonstrated to me they deserve it. Titles unfortunately have come to mean nothing. Ofro has demonstrated just the opposite of deserving respect. His inability to concede a point and the lengths he went to to avoid doing so earned nothing but contempt. I'll let him stick around just so I can make an example of him again in the future. A bit of down home American advice, Ofro: People who get too big for their britches get exposed in the end. Is there a German equivalent to that meme?

Alan Fox is no longer with us. His email to Rieseberg said his finding were being used to dispute evolution. I have never disputed evolution (only the role of chance) and didn't use Riesberg's article to do anything other than dispute trrll's assertion that evolution is unrepeatable. Alan knows this and purposely misrepresented what was in dispute.

KarlI never said anyone modeled microprocessors at the transistor level. That's a straw man. Tom English put those words in my mouth. He said modeling evolution at the protein level is like modeling processors at the transistor level. I replied with an article talking about modeling processors at the gate level. I presumed Tom knew that gates are just a few transistors each and wouldn't quibble. But of course to save your egos both of you did continue to quibble.

In point of fact electronics are modeled and understood even at the quantum scale as necessary. I suspect both you and English knew that but are simply too intellectually dishonest to admit that biological systems are not well enough understood to model them like a microprocessor.You're done here, Karl. I find your dishonesty offensive.

Speaking of anger, mine is growing fast. To compare my silence with regard to the Wikipedia article to a bystander watching a woman being murdered is a low blow, and you should know that. I believe I have sufficiently justified my course of action, and if you don't like it, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've never banned a commenter before, and really don't want to start now. I fear that one more comment from you will be enough for me to give you the boot; it is for this reason that I'm closing this thread.

DvKEugenics is good science with repugnant ethical implications.Don't bother responding, DvK. I've reached the limit of how much time I'm willing to spend correcting your comments. You're history here.

No limit to the pseudoscience, but pseudotheology is another thing entirely.

JaredL: You are herewith limited to two theological posts on any thread. Your confidence in your theological position is out of keeping with its pedigree. Augustine, the Cappadocian Fathers, and Thomas were not slouches and did not derive the reductio ad absurdum that you do. Let's get this thread back on track, which is the connection between atheistic Darwinism, determinism, and the inability, as a matter of practical life, to live out the latter.

DaveTard doesn't get that you can't simultaneously be both good cop and bad cop:

PhilVazThere has been debate among the moderators whether to ban you. I defended you. However, given your uninformed comment that ID claims the designer is God I'm going to admit an error and correct it right now. You're history.

JerryPhilVaz wasn't just banned for this one comment. As I mentioned his banishment was debated among the moderators some time ago for badly misquoting Todd Norquist. I defended Phil at the time but I realize now I shouldn't have.

As to your request that I ban you too. No problem. It's done.

And the shitstorm continues. Maybe this is that flood they've been talking about:

Get lost Zachriel. I gave you a second chance to mend your ways but you're still running about on the net posting trash talk about our site here. I consider that duplicitous and don't want your two-faced kind around here. Hasta la vista. I'll be deleting your previous comments along with you. Call it taking out the trash.

KL is no longer with us. A new user flying off the handle because he was asked and failed to provide a better reference for the Templeton Foundation's supposed request for ID research proposals isn't acceptable here.

23William Dembski12/12/20064:12 pmPutz sounds better, so we're back to putz.

(This is the Isaac Newton of information theory speaking, mind you.)

50DaveScot12/13/20063:45 amPutz does have a better sound to it. No argument there. Absent a more complete single word descriptor I guess it'll have to do. Dickweed would be more hip. Beavis and Butthead really popularized it

Over at www.overwhelmingevidence.com there is a flash animation featuring Judge Jones spouting inanities (inanities that he actually did write or say). There's been a design inference made that it's my voice in the Jones animation. A disgruntled former UD commenter KeithS slowed it down and lowered the pitch. Well, it's true, it actually is me. But that's only temporary. We are inviting Judge Jones to do himself. Stay tuned.

17 December 2006Flatulence removed from The Judge Jones School of LawWilliam Dembski

The Rembrandt of flash animation and I are working to enhance The Judge Jones School of Law. As a first step we have made the animation less offensive to more refined sensibilities. All the overt flatulence has therefore been removed. Go to www.overwhelmingevidence.com for the less objectional version of this animation (we are keeping the original, however, so that when the history of evolution's demise is written, all versions of this animation will be available to historians).

febble is no longer with us - anyone who doesn't understand how natural selection works to conserve (or not) genomic information yet insists on writing long winded anti-ID comments filled with errors due to lack of understanding of the basics is just not a constructive member - good luck on your next blog febble.

It's good evidence for the millions or billions of people who experience it.You have no evidence of self-awareness in anyone but yourself except for testimony from others that they too feel self-aware. What's the difference in kind or quality of evidence between that and the numinous?[/quote]

Dear Reader (did I just sound like O'Leary? Take me out back and shoot me), please appreciate that I am now wading through countless global warming, DCA, and the sound of some dumb thing or other exploding posts. On and on its dysfunctional way UD goes, and I stagger forward, shithat pulled hard down over my ears:

Tims.Inferring that something is designed does not require knowing how it was manufactured. You clearly can't accept that so there's really no reason for you to continue here.

We all need a break. Hell, I need a break: ?

Quote

6DaveScot03/26/20073:55 pm

It just ocurred to me that according to Ernst Mayr I must be a different species from Inuits. We're reproductively isolated by geography and there isn't a snowball's chance in south central Texas I'd be attracted to an Inuit woman anyhow even though we're probably still physically compatible on a hypothetical basis sort of like brown bears and polar bears.

Ilion is no longer with us. His first comment here included the rather grandiose claim that he is certain he can show us modern evolutionary theory is false. His subsequent comments have been large on claims and short on substance. We wish him luck and await his Nobel prize for disproving ToE but won't be holding our collective breath in the interim.

Anybody looking for Bilbo's comments if he hadn't been such an ass they would have stayed up. As a general rule any comment that starts out with the theme I don't expect this to get posted because disagreement isn't tolerated I consider to be a death wish and I grant the wish. So don't do it.

George Murphy: Your D&D comment merits a boot. I see subsequently that are claiming to remove yourself from the discussion here. That's a happy coincidence. Yet to ensure that you don't change your mind, I'm disabling your posting privileges.

I find it fitting that this final entry depicts WAD, and UD, staggering in circles, because it beautifully characterizes the state of ID. Indeed, having scanned every post at UD (most very quickly) I was in the end struck by how empty it has become, relative to it's high points of dysfunctional vitality. Again, like ID itself.

I'd like to echo the sentiments of thanks for your effort, amazement at the tard and hypocrisy of UD, and general awe at your tardproof abilities. Have you been uaing specialist equipment? Is there special training one has to undertake? Personally I very, very, VERY rarely look at UD. The tard aggravates mean and if over exposed I may end up going on ebola spreading and church burning sprees.

YOU ARE SO BANNED HOMO, IN FACT COME BACK SO I CAN BAN YOU ALL OVER AGAIN!!! DT *froths at mouth, knuckles bleed from dragging*

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

...Have you been using specialist equipment? Is there special training one has to undertake?

My equipment requirements are minimal:

- a durable shit-hat- a strong drink- mouse with scroll wheel- a collection of pristine vinyl: Brahms clarinet sonatas, Bach Partitas, Schubert's beautiful Sonata for Arpeggione (sort of a super cello) and piano, and so on. - another strong drink

Training? I'm an autodidact with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests). I had a college level vocabulary at 9 years of age and was reading everything about science I could get my hands on starting a few years before that. I've continued on that course for over 40 years. In my spare time I became a computer design engineer and self-made millionaire. I quit my day job after making my third million (about 6 years ago) so I can concentrate on fun subjects like science that has little or nothing to do with computers (if I can help it), politics, and religion. So basically all the scientific discovery of the last 40 years important enough to make it into the pages of Scientific American I read about at the time it was discovered. For the last 13 years though I've had a broadband connection to the internet and my sources expanded exponentially. For the last 6 years I haven't been burdened with being a computer whiz kid and my time to learn new things has expanded not exponentially but at least doubled or trebled.

Any more questions?

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

1) Do you know Michael Dell personally?2) Do women practically or metaphorically break their pelvises in half opening their legs so that they can be impregnated by you and hopefuly then go on to bear your children?3) Are you afraid of clowns?4) Do you live in fear of visits and have large dogs and lots of guns?5) Are you fond of cheesy poofs?6) Are you an agnostic?7) Extra bonus question: Are you REALLY an agnostic or do you just play one on the net to make it look like IDC has nothing to do with religion?

I don't personally know anyone. I have my people know them and report back. Particularly the biblical knowing, which produces a kind of tingling in the scalp that I've heard is not entirely unpleasant.

2) Do women practically or metaphorically break their pelvises in half opening their legs so that they can be impregnated by you and hopefuly then go on to bear your children?

Only Inuit women, but I'm just not interested, although theoretically we are of the same species.

3) Are you afraid of clowns?

Clowns who don't fear the awesome maw of my chain saw must be deranged, may be dangerous and should be feared.

4) Do you live in fear of visits and have large dogs and lots of guns?

My mother threatened to visit once, but, yes, I do have lots of dogs and large guns. She backed down. (But my scalp was tingling.)

5) Are you fond of cheesy poofs?

Cheesy frontloading with massive error correction is my thing.

6) Are you an agnostic?

Hell if I know.

7) Extra bonus question: Are you REALLY an agnostic or do you just play one on the net to make it look like IDC has nothing to do with religion?

Truth be told, I don't give a rat's ass about any of the topics I address on UD, one way or the other.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

OK SMARTYPANTS IF YOU CHANCE WORSHIPPERS DON'T BELIEVE IN THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, EXPLAIN HOW COME I'M NOT RANDOM AND WHY DID THE HAND OF JESUS GUIDE MY DADDY'S SINGLE SPERM THAT MADE ME ONTO MY MOMMY'S EGG THAT MADE ME?

OR DROP AND GIVE ME TWENTY!!! D.T. * sucks thumb*

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Alas, poor erv! I knew him, D.T.: a fellowof infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hathborne me on his back a thousand times; and now, howAbhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims atit. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I knownot how oft. Where be your gibes now? yourgambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not onenow, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, lether paint an inch thick, to this favor she mustcome; make her laugh at that.

Tell me D.T. When you admire a man with a small moustache who with an effete wave of the arm can call an entire theatre to their feet in an adolescent miasma of modernist crapulence, where does that leave morality?....oh wait you hang out with creationists..Say no more.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

For easy reference, I've decided to copy my first installation in the series (which I originally posted in the Uncommonly Dense thread) to this thread. Apologies for the double post.

The Nixplanatory Filter 2005: The First Year

This compilation was relatively easy, because from its inception in early 2005 to its closure following Dover in December, 2005, UD was moderated exclusively by WAD, and Bandora's Box was opened less often than nowadays.

WAD acknowledges early silent banning and censorship:

About This BlogWilliam Dembski15 May 2005

It seems that some of my readers are disgruntled because their comments are not appearing on this blog and, in some cases, because I'm removing them as users. Please have a look at my Comments about Comments from last month. One of the things I stressed there is don't bore me. Darwinists tend to think that simply by telling an evolutionary story about some phenomenon that they have achieved remarkable insight. I don't.

There are plenty of other forums where I mix it up with Darwinists. Think of this blog as my playground. If you have to take a whiz, do it elsewhere.

Duke York: You are off this blog for good. I've made some adjustments to your account which should keep you off. If you find a way around it, I'll delete you entirely, which, given the way WordPress works, means that all your posts will be gone too. -WmAD

1William Dembski06/26/200510:27 pmI deleted Doran's comment because it was yet another instance of the trite and easy dismissals of ID that I find elsewhere and that I've answered in my writings. If you want to be critical of ID on this blog, tell me something I haven't seen before. I spent the last three months as an expert witness in the Dover case pouring over the expert witness reports of all the usual suspects on the other side (Miller, Forrest, Pennock, etc.) and responding to them at length. I expect I'll be posting these reports on my designinference.com website soon. Try to imagine that I might be well informed about what the other side is saying. Try also to imagine that I'm easily bored by what they are saying. ?-WmAD

Sartre - will you leave and never come back if I provide my design engineering credentials?

And now for an off topic break from these dreary executions, courtesy of a classic:

?

Quote

37DaveScot08/13/20057:56 pmSartreBiologists have no training in engineering. How can they recognize design?You aren't going to win this argument. I'm an autodidact. My knowledge of biology is extensive as is my knowledge of computers and machinery of all kinds.

Vax, you are repeating the party line. I have no patience for it here. You are out of here. ?-WmAD

Something new...Demski bans himself!

19 August 2005My Retirement from Intelligent DesignWilliam Dembski

The rancor and daily vilification directed at me by the Pandasthumb has finally taken its toll. Never a kind word or a gesture of appreciation for all I've done to advance science and enrich our understanding of the world. Just criticism, vituperation, and abuse. I can't endure it any longer. I've therefore decided to leave intelligent design and return to my first love ?- playing Chicago blues at the keyboard. Is this decision final? Might I make a comeback to intelligent design? Yes, it's possible. If someone were to deposit $1,000,000 in my bank account (routing and account numbers available on request), I will consider a return. Otherwise, look for me around Halsted and Fullerton. Farewell. ?-WmAD

OK, so he was back the same day. One can see where FTK learned her chops. ?But now Benji's back, still chewing WAD's slippers:

Here's an email from someone I banned from this blog. If you can't see why I've lost all patience with people like this, then you need to be spending your time elsewhere in cyberspace.

William,

Is there the slightest possibility you might ?'open' your ID forum to dissenting views?

You have some very dedicated apostles stroking your online ego, and insulating these young scientists from the ?'Borg' is very Christian of you indeed; however, to many of us on the ?'outside' your questionable editing practices suggest little more than self-aggrandizing censorship.You are a curiosity, your theory a religious oddity, and your ?'designer' is wearing your hat.

Darwinists have long regarded freedom of censorship as an inalienable right. I do to. But not because I don't like criticism of my views. Informed criticism is fine. Stupid, contemptuous, repetitive criticism is where I've lost patience. ?-WmAD

Mr. Christopher: You are fast becoming boring and in danger of getting booted from this forum. Who do you think sent me the copy of the check? And in the email he himself remarked that ?Intelligent Design is werry, werry good to me. Lighten up and chill out. As for my cashing in on ID, I've admitted as much before and in the same terms: http://www.idthefuture.com/200.....o_id.html. Think of ID and evolution as an arms race in which the arms manufacturers on both sides cash in. Let that thought cheer you this holiday season.

-WmAD

The following post was WAD's momentary dissolution of UD following Dover. Having skimmed the first year of UD, I could feel the kick to the stomach myself.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Well, Sal, I hope you begin to understand the sort of people you call your friends. If not, maybe a few more invitations to the opposition, along with their banning for minor infractions will open your eyes.

Well, Sal, I hope you begin to understand the sort of people you call your friends. If not, maybe a few more invitations to the opposition, along with their banning for minor infractions will open your eyes.

What where the "minor infractions"? Damned if I managed to see any. My POV was ERV got banned for being correct.

Oh, I know the "official" line lie. But ERV (although a tad sarcastic) was better behaved than her detractors.

Please add one more to the list- Dr. Dr. Demsbksi goes on Rampage - Bans poster "Seek and Find"

SeekAndFind: It?s evident that you haven?t read any of the papers produced by the EIL. If you had, you would realize that they fall squarely within the field of evolutionary computing, WHICH IS PROF. MARKS?S AREA OF EXPERTISE. I?m therefore giving you the boot. Goodbye. ?WmAD

ps:[I] I'm betting that Dembski is dumb enough to claim the "boot" he gave SeekAndFind on his Taxes. ?Hey, St. Hovind would have wanted it that way.

Maybe Bill should move to North Korea. He would fit right in. Everyone there fears the Dear Leader and must endure being force fed propaganda without the slightest murmur of descent....er I mean dissent. Speaker in the wires? They have those in the PRK as well; each apartment has a loudspeaker wired back to party headquarters that broadcasts propaganda for several hours per day. You can turn the volume down but not off.Think of it as being in a fundy church for most of the week. The great paradox, of unbridled power is that in the hands of those that vaingloriously seek it, the audience must ideally be captive. ?The great secret is to create the perception that those on the inside would lose something if they were banished to the outside.

In Dr.Wads case that moment has long gone.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Maybe Bill should move to North Korea. He would fit right in. Everyone there fears the Dear Leader and must endure being force fed propaganda without the slightest murmur of descent....er I mean dissent.

This made me think of the NK News website, which has a random insult generator. WmAD and his merry band definitely need to get themselves one.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Maybe Bill should move to North Korea. He would fit right in. Everyone there fears the Dear Leader and must endure being force fed propaganda without the slightest murmur of descent....er I mean dissent.

This made me think of the NK News website, which has a random insult generator. WmAD and his merry band definitely need to get themselves one.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Grayman: That quote has been so overused and so used out of context against me that I’m going to boot you for bringing it up here — three strikes. To the rest, that quote comes from a book with a theological press in which I explore the theological implications of ID. The theological implications of a scientific theory or a theological reframing or interpretation of a scientific theory is not identical with it — just as there’s quantum mechanics and there are lots of interpretations of it (e.g., many minds or many worlds). –WmAD

(Edit: Added links. So far as I can tell using the search function at UD, Grayman had received no prior admonitions. Rather, he made the mistake of posting during a very bad week for WAD.)

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

“[Peter Irons] forwards to me their response confirming that I am indeed an execrable character”

But John Lilley doesn’t describe you as, nor even imply you to be, “an execrable character”. Perhaps this description is in other e-mails not yet published here. Or will soon be revealed to us in the form of an animated cartoon replete with farting noises.

..and then it was gone.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

An old banning that was missed in my original compilation because the entire thread in which it appeared was subsequently deleted. Albatrossity2 found it in the facile record back on 9/21, but I didn't happen to see his post until today. The thread itself is a true classic.

QualitativeJanuary 30, 2006 10:16 pm

Even if ID gets pushed into the realm of philosophy perhaps it can take Darwinism with it.

Qualiatative is no longer with us. Who is next?

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Two bans in one thread. That's pretty good shooting even though they're firing from close range.

I am surprised Religion Prof lasted as long as he did - he wasn't backing down from their usual nonsense from day 1, but I suspect that his moniker held back his bannation to an extent.

Religion Prof - Come visit us again.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

The Committee on Nixplanatory Accuracy convened an emergency session overnight, attorneys present, and after many heated exchanges ruled that Mickey Bitsko's second bannination will enter the archives with an Asterix:

Zachriel demonstrates inference to the best explanation at its most effective. Here we infer that temmenicki2 posted on UD, but was made to disappear. "Silent but deadly" refers to more than one UD phenomenon:

Speaking of survival of the fittest, I wonder how “fit” temmenicki2’s comment will be judged? ((I suspect that that least natural of “selecters”, a certain davescot, will soon swoop in and notify us that both temmenicki2, and his memetic offspring are no longer with us.))

temmenicki2, it is indeed possible that Denyse does not understand evolution, but I’d like to suggest that you simply don’t understand Denyse.

you said: “survival of the fittest simply means that those critters that make more babies have a better chance of getting their genes into the next generation.”

johnson rightly pointed out in darwin on trial that this is merely a tautology. whoever survives ….survives. whoever survives also is able to bring their genes to the next generation. wow….that is brilliant! thanks for the deep insights into evolution. it is truly a complex theory eh?

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Hermagoras has done valuable fieldwork, and made an astounding discovery:

Quote

Yo yo yo peeps! Nixplanatory filter in da House!

Remember that horrid little thread by Galapagos Finch? The one with the cheese grater toilet paper? The one where getawitness continued his crusade to get an explanation on the EV paper? And maybe was getting somewhere?

There can be only one explanation. The Nixplanatory Filter has mutated and evolved. We've witnessed the emergence of a new function for the Nixplanatory filter. Exapted from its previous function - blanking inconveniently truthful commenters - it has acquired a new function: obliviating entire threads. This may only occur when those threads explicitly embarrass the lead smathematiciannakeoilsalesman - but that remains to be seen.

This is a rare and exciting moment in Rescienceligion. Hats off to Hermagoras.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

In the bizarre World of WADcraft, virtual persons emerge from the quantum vacuum, live, speak the truth, then fall back into the nothingness from which they came. But the Nixplanatory Filter can't distinguish between that which is and that which might be, and therefore spasms and flails reflexively. Such phantom banninations of virtual persons will henceforth be recorded here, with this solemn incantation:

Stanton Rockwell never was true, and always will be.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

The Nixplanatory Filter continues to evolve, acquiring new modes of functioning. Gone is the loudspeaker in ceiling, and MIA is DaveTard and his arrogant declamations. New to WOW is the art of obliviation, whereby comments and even entire threads are dispatched to oblivion by The Ministry of Truth.

A particularly entertaining example (by way of cross-post) of a post being quietly shorn of commentary:

Quote (lkeithlu @ Nov. 19 2007,19:07)

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 19 2007,15:50)

Ftk craves moderation in all things. Plus she has a cold.

Quote

1Glarson2411/19/20073:55 pmI bet this will be just as successful as Pan^das! Born^again 77, what do you think?

2Forthekids11/19/20074:30 pmCough…um, are there any moderators around here anymore? Just curious.

3

raunala

11/19/2007

4:37 pm

Forthekids is right. I’m usually lurker, but I now have to say I can’t stand all these darwinian trolls anymore. I think I will stop reading this blog if something is not done about that.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Long may he not rest in peace, but summon the dark angels to make DaveScot allergic to cowboy hats and boots, BA^77 to ramble on in meaningless rants, and Dembski to act as if he were above the law and get caught...

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

After watching the actions of Lazarus and cdesignproponentsists for a while I decided to block them. I cannot tell if they legitimately believe what they are saying but they are not here to reasonably discuss issues, they are here to accuse people based upon a disagreement on priorities. Besides, some terminology they used made me suspect they were frauds. If they’re not going to have any positive contribution to UD I don’t see why they should stay.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Not only should atheists be disallowed for teaching any subject related to the bible, non-Nazis should be disallowed from teaching about Nazism, and capitalists should be disallowed from teaching about Communism.

Only true believers get to talk about given beliefs. It’s the only way to give everyone a fair shake.

Quote

3

digdug24

12/04/2007

3:47 pm

Indeed. All the so-called ’scientists’ who discredit the evidence for Bigfoot should not be allowed to teach a cryptozoology class. Someone like the new DI fellow Michael Medved would be infinitely better at such instruction because he believes it. Anyone else will just show their preconceived biases.

Quote

4

Bugsy

12/04/2007

4:02 pm

The literal existence of angels and of psi haven’t been given fair shakes in mainstream academia, either. We need to put more enthusiastic people in the chairs currently occupied by materialist scientists, to make sure that our experiments turn out the right way.

“What gives you the audacity to say that God definitely did not have a hand in creating such stunning complexity we see in life?”

I’ve said no such thing. In fact, you seem to be toeing the materialist line by denying the existence of angels and psi. I’d think someone interested in quantum mechanics and ID would know better than to lump entire fields into the rubbish bin because they don’t comply with orthodoxy, but that’s exactly what you’ve done.

I ask you to reevaluate your incorrect, materialistic premises before you go over what I’ve written. Only then can it become apparent that what I mean is not at all what you think it is, and that I’m asserting a legitimate place for ID while decrying the canning of a distinguished astrophysicist.

Quote

9

digdug24

12/04/2007

5:12 pm

Hear hear bugsy.

Born^Again, why are you discrediting the work of honest scholars in the field of cryptozoology? There are lots of these folks out there and academia pooh-poohs their hard evidence and says it is not ’scientific’. i see lots of interesting parallels between cryptozoology and ID. As far as angels go, I think we can make a design inference about their existence. Dembski certainly agrees. A question I have often considered is ‘how much CSI would an angel have?’ Certainly it must be much more than a human being. This would give us a first order approximation at how much has been lost since the Fall.

I for one am glad that you are standing up for God and the argument regarding design. ID stands to gain immeasurably from not being wishywashy about the identity of the designer. This is a problem around here, for sure.

And then Luskin intervenes, deleting all posts by both Bugsy and Digdug.

Quote

6

Casey Luskin

12/04/2007

5:38 pm

The evidence released yesterday shows undeniable evidence that Dr. Gonzalez faced a hostile work environment and was denied academic freedom becuase he supports intelligent design. Regardless of whether you agree with ID, open minded people should be abhorred at what took place at ISU.

Bugsy and Digdug24 provide us with excellent examples of how Darwinists cope with evidence of their academic intolerance towards ID: they change the subject and make comments about angels and cryptozoology, etc. To see a discussion of the issue of ID and the identity of the designer, see [URL=http://www.discovery.org/a/4306.

--------------"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Bugsy and DigDug again exemplify the newest Nixplanatory function evident at UD: Hidden Obliviation. Banninnation and Hidden Obliviation differ, although are not mutually exclusive.

Banninnation: Usually performed by WAD or DaveTard (although occasionally by others), and typically announced to the world by means of Arrogant Dismissive Aphorism. Old Banninnation is the archaic form typically administered through The Loudspeaker in the Ceiling. New Banninnation is the current, clearly endangered form implemented by means of Aphoristic Comment. Typically the banninnator identifies him or herself by means of initials, e.g., - WmAD

Hidden Obliviation: The removal of a series of posts, and sometimes entire threads, by Hidden Nixmasters. Hidden Nixmasters never announce their actions, yet the obliviated commenters remain detectable by means of their presence in negative space, as shadows cast across the continuing blithering commentary of other, as yet to be banned or obliviated participants.

The emergence of Hidden Obliviation and Hidden Nixmasters reflects the operation of a new form of evolutionary causation: Ridiculative Selection. Ridiculative selection is evident when the behavioral topology of a blog is modified by the consistent application of ridiculative pressures, in the face of which new behaviors that have yet to be ridiculed emerge while old behaviors that have been targeted by ridiculative selection drop from sight. Work is going forward to test the hypothesis that novel nixplanatory behaviors now emerging at UD are doing so response to the very ridiculative pressures applied by this thread.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

The moderators here should read your analysis. People are banned too frequently, merely for intransigence...

22BarryA12/05/200711:14 pm

jerry, I’m not sure I agree. I think you have to be pretty bad to get banned from this site. Throwing out insults, impugning integrity, etc. I don’t think mere intransigence gets you kicked off. Witness getawitness’s continued presence. He never admits he’s wrong even when everyone (including him, I suspect) knows it. But at least he’s civil and kicks an occasional joke into the mix.

StuartHarris, it seems to be the medical community was pretty optimistic about antibiotics. That’s why they prescribed them all the time.

But then the bacteria kept developing resistance to even the toughest antibiotics. It seems to me we’re reaching something more like the edge of antibiotic technology.

6russ12/10/20071:04 am

...Falsification of his “edge of evolution”, or simply adjusting where the edge lies? If bacteria successfully adapt to each and every antibiotic, there’s no evidence that that will lead to anything more than an altered bacterium.

7getawitness12/10/20071:11 am

Falsification of that edge, yes. He would be free to move the goalposts and draw another line in the sand.

13DaveScot12/10/20079:21 am

Getawitness is no longer with us.

BarryA?

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

dcost is no longer with us. He asserted that the fossil record is incomplete because (I kid you not) it is incomplete. I guess he is certain he is right because he is certain he is right. In the meantime I’m certain that arguments of that nature are not welcome here.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Here we have a Networked Hidden Obliviation, as Shoghi was summarily disappeared from UD AND comments caught in his web were obliviated as well. And all this happened in a computer on a post in WAD's backyard:

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 17 2008,10:55)

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 15 2008,16:48)

Quote

Shoghi: I designed a controlled experiment that would test the hypothesis that organisms are frontloaded with information that allows them to survive in a totally unique environment that could not have possibly been an evolutionary adaptation. ...My procedures (short version): Find spider hatchlings that have been born in the wild outdoors. Place them inside a broken computer (I choose a computer because they haven’t been around long enough for spiders to evolve any adaptations to living with). Next, place the computer on top of a pole outdoors. Wait and observe to see if they can build a web and then successfully reproduce.

jerry: A very clever experiment and one that offers prospects for the future.

Shoghi, put jerry down. You've had your fun.

Shoghi, I told you to put jerry down. Now, jerry's comments about spiders are gone too. No more spiders anywhere!

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

A crosspost from the Uncommonly Dense thread documenting the science of obliviology. Unseen by the public are many hours of hot, dusty and arduous fieldwork conducted under primitive conditions. This refers to the ID's Predictive Prowess thread:

Obliviated comments may be detected as comment references fail to align. For example, in comment 159 (01/18/2008, 4:57 am) Clarence quoted PaV in 153 - but PaV's comment appears in 152 (01/17/2008, 6:31 pm). So one message prior to the original 153 was deleted after 4:57 am of 1/18.

Similarly, the wonderer in 143 (01/17/2008 9:01 am) addresses DLH in 100 - but the DLH comment to which he is responding appears in 98 (01/16/2008, 9:29 am). So some time after the (now) 143 was posted two comments were obliviated that appeared prior to DLH's (now) 98.

We can narrow this down a bit: in 147 Larry Fafarman (01/17/2008 2:17 pm) quoted DaveTard in #48 (01/15/2008 11:28 am), and the reference aligns. That means that nothing was deleted prior to 48 during that period, and hence the two deletions above occurred between comments 48 and 98. Prior to that Shoghi and his comments were obliviated, as was at least one of Jerry's comments. (I know: who cares?)

Of course, these numbers are likely to changes as further obliviations occur.

I think they're conducting a knockout experiment. Here they've knocked out a number of comments, yet the thread makes no less sense than before. It follows that the entire thread may be junk commentary.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

DRat07 and all his (or her) comments have been Hidden Obliviated (although are still indexed by the UD search function). DRat's comments have disappeared from UD, across a number of threads, including WAD's The World as Evolving Information.

(WAD appears to have a point.)

HT: Zachriel

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

DRat07 and all his (or her) comments have been Hidden Obliviated (although are still indexed by the UD search function). DRat's comments have disappeared from UD, across a number of threads, including WAD's The World as Evolving Information.

(WAD appears to have a point.)

HT: Zachriel

Drat was me - I am surprised it took them this long to realize that Drat is Tard spelled backward.

The Nixplanatory Filter must have been not working again.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

A Hidden Nixmaster has oblivated an entire thread at UD, demonstrating the operation of the Nixplanatory Filter in yet another new mode: Self-Ridiculative Selection. CeilingCat captured the entire spectacle here.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Semprini: Let me encourage you to start by looking at the later chapters of The Design of Life and follow the references there (go to www.thedesignoflife.net). That said, I don’t like your tone, so unless you find another way in, you won’t be posting at UD any longer.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

What the hell is going on over there? I can't keep up. WAD is oblivating threads as fast as DaveTard can create them.

HT to PTET for snagging Colson Praises PETA - Darwin Worldview. And thanks to DaveTard for keeping us in mind of A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists with his argument that stupid acts prove intelligent design. Anyone happen to grab it?

The Days of PegLeg stands as a beacon of reason and stability as the Gaffe Zeppelin burns.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

And thanks to DaveTard for keeping us in mind of A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists with his argument that stupid acts prove intelligent design. Anyone happen to grab it?

It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open . . .

And thanks to DaveTard for keeping us in mind of A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists with his argument that stupid acts prove intelligent design. Anyone happen to grab it?

It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open . . .

And thanks to DaveTard for keeping us in mind of A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists with his argument that stupid acts prove intelligent design. Anyone happen to grab it?

It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open . . .

And thanks to DaveTard for keeping us in mind of A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists with his argument that stupid acts prove intelligent design. Anyone happen to grab it?

It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open . . .

A rare fully intact specimen of a UD thread that succumbed to hidden obliviation. This and several similar threads are thought to have blundered into the Le Brea Tard Pits from which there was no escape. As can be seen below, struggle only hastened it's demise. (HT: oldman)

Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 26 2008,00:06

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Like most guys who know a lot about computing, you know precious little about statistical inference. A downward spike in the latest sample of a time series that has shown a long-term upward trend is no basis for saying that you are "proven right." This is not to say that you are not right -- it's just to say that it's foolish to trumpet on the basis of so little information. It's obvious that neither of you has ever worked in prediction of nonlinear, nonstationary time series.

I genuinely do not know what to believe about anthropogenic global warming. But I do know that there is so much scientific uncertainty in the matter that any layperson who claims to have resolved it absolutely is pure bluster. And I know also that there are hugely different costs associated with different errors in inference. If CO2 emissions are in fact causing global warming, and we do nothing about them, then the cost of the error is astounding. If the emissions are not responsible for global warming, and we reduce them needlessly, the cost of the error is relatively low. Given the present scientific uncertainty, and the possibility that severe cost is associated with allowing CO2 emissions to rise, a prudent course would be to look for approaches to reducing emissions that are a) relatively high in efficacy and b) relatively low in impact on the economy.

Nothing forces us to do everything possible to reduce CO2 emissions or to ignore them totally. Only simpletons and blow-hards insist on giving all-or-nothing responses to ambiguous scientific information.

A funny aspect of my head-butting with Dave is that he doesn't know, and seems incapable of discerning, that my IQ is identical to his. Of course, I have four degrees that he does not, and a bunch of teaching, research, reviewing, etc., to boot. And unlike him, I can allow that some of you outclass me.

It happens that I once published results in prediction of annual sunspots numbers (a classical problem in statistics) that improved greatly on all in the literature. When I tell Dave he's an IDiot to claim "proof" that global temperatures are not rising when temperatures dip sharply for a year, he really should listen. But I think we all agree that Davie's wee-wee would have shriveled and fallen off if he had left my comment on the blog.

--------------I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

Like most guys who know a lot about computing, you know precious little about statistical inference. A downward spike in the latest sample of a time series that has shown a long-term upward trend is no basis for saying that you are "proven right." This is not to say that you are not right -- it's just to say that it's foolish to trumpet on the basis of so little information. It's obvious that neither of you has ever worked in prediction of nonlinear, nonstationary time series.

I genuinely do not know what to believe about anthropogenic global warming. But I do know that there is so much scientific uncertainty in the matter that any layperson who claims to have resolved it absolutely is pure bluster. And I know also that there are hugely different costs associated with different errors in inference. If CO2 emissions are in fact causing global warming, and we do nothing about them, then the cost of the error is astounding. If the emissions are not responsible for global warming, and we reduce them needlessly, the cost of the error is relatively low. Given the present scientific uncertainty, and the possibility that severe cost is associated with allowing CO2 emissions to rise, a prudent course would be to look for approaches to reducing emissions that are a) relatively high in efficacy and b) relatively low in impact on the economy.

Nothing forces us to do everything possible to reduce CO2 emissions or to ignore them totally. Only simpletons and blow-hards insist on giving all-or-nothing responses to ambiguous scientific information.

A funny aspect of my head-butting with Dave is that he doesn't know, and seems incapable of discerning, that my IQ is identical to his. Of course, I have four degrees that he does not, and a bunch of teaching, research, reviewing, etc., to boot. And unlike him, I can allow that some of you outclass me.

It happens that I once published results in prediction of annual sunspots numbers (a classical problem in statistics) that improved greatly on all in the literature. When I tell Dave he's an IDiot to claim "proof" that global temperatures are not rising when temperatures dip sharply for a year, he really should listen. But I think we all agree that Davie's wee-wee would have shriveled and fallen off if he had left my comment on the blog.

Turncoat -

AL RITE - LISTEN UP HOMO, CUZ I'M TALKING HERE AND ONLY GONNA TELL THIS TO YOU 1 TIME. YEAH, I'M TALKING TO YOU - I'M THE ONLY REAL MAN HERE.

MY IQ IS BASED ON THE 100 I GOT ON THE WRITTEN PART OF THE DRIVING TEST, AND I SCORED A PERFECT 100, SO THAT MEANS I'M SMARTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE, CUZ NO ONE CAN BEAT THAT SCORE!

PUT THAT IN YER DARWINIST PIPES AND SMOKE IT.

SO THERE, PDQ, AND QED, ETC. YOU CAN NOT BE SMARTER THAN MY AUTODICK THINKING.

HOMO

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

I would love to see some of Dembski's old expulsion notices released to the media right after the film opens. Wes, are you reading this? Have you saved stuff going back that far?

Turncoat -

You called out Dave's NAME and that's why you and your message were obliviated: "Only simpletons and blow-hards..."

Who were you at UD this time?

Cloud of Unknowing.

I've been expelled many times, but deleted only once before. That was after I challenged the Gish-galloping Gordon E. Mullings, by name, to a $25,000 wager regarding "free lunch" in optimization. (I'd have actually gone through with the bet, were he fool enough to take it, but I intended simply to jerk his chain.) He signed his comments "GEM of TKI" and linked to web pages giving his name, so I didn't think he had left himself privacy I could infringe upon. But DaveTard decided otherwise. I suppose homely cusses like Mr. Springer (barefoot and pregnant) and Msr. Mullings (3rd and 5th thumbnails) have to stick together.

I love it when the Czar gives me the boot and leaves his "rationale" on the blog. Perhaps he's finally caught on to the fact that I've been playing him against himself. He is, of course, his own worst enemy. But I suspect he's conscious that evidence of UD's hypocrisy is a bad thing when "Expelled" is about to be released.

--------------I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

Why I have wondered is that seminal douche Kairosfocus not here anymore. Perhaps you have answered the question. I have suffered that fool, gladly, several occasions (so have Hermagoras and others). Fight the power!!!!

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Why I have wondered is that seminal douche Kairosfocus not here anymore. Perhaps you have answered the question. I have suffered that fool, gladly, several occasions (so have Hermagoras and others).

I don't hang diagnoses on everyone at UD, but KF gives strong signs of bipolar disorder (and Gil Dodgen has essentially tagged himself as the narcissistic son of a narcissistic father). I predicted that he would swing into depression and disappear for a while, and I was right about that. We'll have to wait and see if he returns galloping.

I think there's some justification for getting the UDers to parade their... issues. But I don't want to be out-and-out cruel to Mullings. David Scott Springer is a different matter. The IDists think evolutionary theory has caused people to disavow moral responsibility for their actions. Well, I hold DaveScot morally responsible for his polymorphously unconscionable behavior.

Having worked on a psychiatric ward, I know just how pernicious mania is. If I'm right about Mullings, I sincerely hope he takes the psychotropics Denyse O'Leary says no ensouled body needs and gets better.

--------------I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

I am surprised that you might think that Kairosfocus is somehow not all there. I mean, not really, because ID requires some fundamental level of disconnect, but on the other hand this cat has all sorts of posted tard at the always linked discussion. And that kind of shit is hard to argue about, clearly it is the product of a warped but focused mind.

Don't get me wrong, he is one of my favorite all time tards because of the swallowing of the baby-puke colored pill, but at the very least his highly systematic and seemingly ennumerated scheme for epistemology indicated that he was more than your average turettes syndrome basketcase pubic hair filer.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

I really can't remember most of them. I used to be Semiotic 007. Some time before that, I went by my own name, and Our YEC Savior went to some length to make sure THE WORLD (he clearly believed that THE WORLD was reading UD) did not mistake me for the creationist by the same name. The funny thing is that the notion of creation is central to my belief system, but I have absolutely no use for the -ism. Gil Dodgen opened a thread addressing me directly when I pointed out that he had made absolutely moronic comments about simulation. And DaveScot also opened a thread addressing me directly -- if I recall correctly, he was responding to my observation that lay "science skeptics" are sorry substitutes for practicing researchers with PhD's. (I've actually insisted this in 4-5 incarnations now. It's a sure-fire way of getting the IDiots to demonstrate their circle jerk.)

I am surprised that you might think that Kairosfocus is somehow not all there. I mean, not really, because ID requires some fundamental level of disconnect, but on the other hand this cat has all sorts of posted tard at the always linked discussion. And that kind of shit is hard to argue about, clearly it is the product of a warped but focused mind.

Don't get me wrong, he is one of my favorite all time tards because of the swallowing of the baby-puke colored pill, but at the very least his highly systematic and seemingly ennumerated scheme for epistemology indicated that he was more than your average turettes syndrome basketcase pubic hair filer.

When someone with bipolar I disorder is on the upswing, but not yet in a psychotic state, he is "all there," and may be highly focused, sleeping little and working long hours on something that seems tremendously important at the time. I don't think the Kairosfocus who responded to Semiotic 007 at UD was in as good shape as the Mullings who wrote the documents on the web. Manics are big-time systematizers. They are often grandiose. They may speak rapidly and tangentially. Sound familiar?

ID requires some fundamental level of disconnect? The vast majority of IDists are "liars for God." They're creationists trying to circumvent federal law by obfuscating their theory that intelligence creates complex specified information. Beyond that, the notion of winning back science for Jesus, closely akin to the notion of winning back America for Jesus, is friggin' looney-tunes.

--------------I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

I wasn't expelled. I was willing to stand up for Marks and his right to push evolutionary informatics and notions like active information. But when the names "Dodgen" and "Sewell" turned up next to mine, I was appalled. And I excused myself politely. Bob Marks is a decent guy, as best I can tell.

About thirty years ago, I was expelled from, and subsequently readmitted to, a Baptist college. My sin was to agitate for equality of women and men in education. My salvation was the many students and faculty members who spoke out on my behalf. Last year, I felt it was my turn to speak out for someone. I interacted behind the scenes, obviously to no avail, with regents and the executive vice president and provost of Baylor.

Fun facts to know and tell: I exchanged notes with a regent on the 51st anniversary of my birth in Waco. The site of my first home is now part of the Baylor campus.

Another important aspect of the story is that when I signed on with the EvoInfo Lab, I thought I had some solid "free lunch" results for optimization forthcoming. Bob Marks agreed up front not to censor my work, so my plan was to post at his site a research paper contradicting much of what he and Dembski have to say.

As things stand, I do have some "free lunch" results, but I consider them somewhat trivial. I'm giving that line of research a rest at the moment, and will return to it after revisiting some work in evolution of time series predictors.

All in all, the experience with the EvoInfo lab was embarrassing for me. But I feel I did what was right for me to do.

--------------I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

Dembski suggested that Semiotic 007 (what a big secret my real identity was!) contact Marks. I did. Marks reviewed my web site, complimented me on some of my poems, asked for comments on his and Dembski's papers, and linked me into the EvoInfo web site. I never commented on the papers. Eventually I asked Marks to remove me from the site. Marks agreed, sent his best wishes, and completed the job the same day. That's the full extent of our interaction.

I have more email text from regents and the EVPP of Baylor than I do Marks and Dembski.

--------------I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

Holey moley. I didn't quite follow all of this very well back when it happened. Congrats! By the way I thought I was being clever about being 'expelled' since there are two of y'all running around. Figured that when you said the other one was a creationist that the other one was the one working with Marks.

Again, fine work.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Turncoat: Only five other posts since October 2006. And identifying me rose to threshold. I am flattered.

It was your remark concerning sunspots that gave it away for me. I recalled you saying something about predicting sunspots with genetic algorithms on UD at the time, and I looked up your paper back then.

--------------After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

Turncoat: Only five other posts since October 2006. And identifying me rose to threshold. I am flattered.

It was your remark concerning sunspots that gave it away for me. I recalled you saying something about predicting sunspots with genetic algorithms on UD at the time, and I looked up your paper back then.

My writing style is distinctive, as is the combination of topics I comment on. It's never a secret who I am. The game is that as long as I don't say who I am and don't cross DaveScot, everyone pretends he doesn't know who I am.

--------------I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

I genuinely do not know what to believe about anthropogenic global warming. But I do know that there is so much scientific uncertainty in the matter that any layperson who claims to have resolved it absolutely is pure bluster. And I know also that there are hugely different costs associated with different errors in inference. If CO2 emissions are in fact causing global warming, and we do nothing about them, then the cost of the error is astounding. If the emissions are not responsible for global warming, and we reduce them needlessly, the cost of the error is relatively low. Given the present scientific uncertainty, and the possibility that severe cost is associated with allowing CO2 emissions to rise, a prudent course would be to look for approaches to reducing emissions that are a) relatively high in efficacy and b) relatively low in impact on the economy.

In case anyone is wondering where 30 comments disappeared to they can be found at www.offtopicpurgatory.org.

Says carlsonjok: "I would note that the comments that were deleted were all the comments discussing Sal's dishonest use of the Darwin puppy quote. Sal's original comment is still there, though. You are one classy guy, Dave.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

In case anyone is wondering where 30 comments disappeared to they can be found at www.offtopicpurgatory.org.

Says carlsonjok: "I would note that the comments that were deleted were all the comments discussing Sal's dishonest use of the Darwin puppy quote. Sal's original comment is still there, though. You are one classy guy, Dave.

Dave lifts the intelligence of fools to new levels

....but even by his own metric, that is still below an average IQ of a 17 yr old (av. age of SAT test candidate) with a 23 year old's brain (IQ approx 140-150).......when sat* by a semi college educated marine dork who is actually .....23 years old.

*as in dT taking a 17 year old's SAT test at 23 years old, when he is ready for the knackery.

"Do we need to know whether or not the mountains of Rushmore were designed or not in order to reach a design inference for the faces carved into them? No. Only the difference in specified complexity between the old and new patterns need be examined."

ID is so awesome. It is a science that does no lab or field work and relies on mathematical concepts that use no mathematical calculations. It reminds me of the Todd Snider song about the band that wouldn’t play a note.

"Do we need to know whether or not the mountains of Rushmore were designed or not in order to reach a design inference for the faces carved into them? No. Only the difference in specified complexity between the old and new patterns need be examined."

ID is so awesome. It is a science that does no lab or field work and relies on mathematical concepts that use no mathematical calculations. It reminds me of the Todd Snider song about the band that wouldn’t play a note.

Several people have remarked that, while never formally banned, their comments simply stopped appearing on UD. If that happened to you, then PM me with the details. After conducting a thorough background check*, I'll include you in a compilation of similar unknown soldiers. If you otherwise don't find yourself in my compilation, let me know.

* Sent me a PM? Yes. Cleared.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Several people have remarked that, while never formally banned, their comments simply stopped appearing on UD. If that happened to you, then PM me with the details. After conducting a thorough background check*, I'll include you in a compilation of similar unknown soldiers. If you otherwise don't find yourself in my compilation, let me know.

* Sent me a PM? Yes. Cleared.

I'm not one of the banned, but I am just disgusted by the total infantile puerile amoral behavior of these cretinous yahoos.

They can't even openly ban posters.

My opinion of fundieshits is only confirmed by their behavior: By their fruits ye shall know (Matthew 7:16)

--------------"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

The offending comment is gone, so I've no idea what he did. But this is quite an honour. Bannination by the witch, not just the flying monkey.

I saw it. Uthan's comment was something to the effect that Google Scholar had over 2 million hits on evolution and only 14 thousand for intelligent design. An interesting comparison made more interesting by someone pointing out the danger of assuming Google hits equate to legitimacy.

Quote

Google hits has nothing to do with the legitimacy of a science. Consider that Time Cube has approximately 75,000 google results.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

I saw it. Uthan's comment was something to the effect that Google Scholar had over 2 million hits on evolution and only 14 thousand for intelligent design. An interesting comparison made more interesting by someone pointing out the danger of assuming Google hits equate to legitimacy.

Quote

Google hits has nothing to do with the legitimacy of a science. Consider that Time Cube has approximately 75,000 google results.

Thirdly, I will ask the question whether it is theologically warranted to conclude that the intelligent designer of ID can be the God of Christian theology. In other words, one can ask whether believers should want the designer of ID to be the God they worship. I doubt whether that is the case, by describing Karl Barth’s Kant’s inspired criticism of natural theology. I conclude that ID is an example of ‘the domestication of transcendence’, and that theologians should reject ID as a theological illusion, built to blind the faithful.

That was from one of the papers submitted, Taede SmedesCatholic University of Louvain

To cut to the chase, our best instruments can only measure out to 400 light-years using triangulation. Anything beyond that is a guess.

This is interesting. According to Wikipedia the distance to SN1987A has been measured by triangulation. The figure obtained is 168,000 light years.

Quote

The three bright rings around SN 1987A are material from the stellar wind of the progenitor. These rings were ionized by the ultraviolet flash from the supernova explosion, and consequently began emitting in various emission lines. These rings did not “turn on” until several months after the supernova, and the turn-on process can be very accurately studied through spectroscopy. The rings are large enough for their angular size to be measured accurately: the inner ring is 0.808 arcseconds in radius. Using the distance light must have traveled to light up the inner ring as the base of a right angle triangle, and the angular size as seen from the Earth for the local angle, one can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years

Will you be giving up your YEC leanings now as this data appears to directly disconfirm your theory that the cosmos can be young?

Not being an uneducated tard, he just didn't 'fit in'.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Using the distance light must have traveled to light up the inner ring as the base of a right angle triangle, and the angular size as seen from the Earth for the local angle, one can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years

Interesting number. 168,000 happens to be the speed of light in miles per second. Dr. Dr. D should pounce on this as the True signature of the Designer. What are the odds that this cosmic number should be expressed in earth years and English units, unless God is an Englishman?

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

When YOU have gone through the training, get back to me. Otherwise yours, like Gerry’s, is a voice of ignorance. But that’s not why I banned him. I banned him for trying to drag my children and grandchildren through the polluted waters of his so-called mind.

ETA:

76PannenbergOmega05/03/20087:49 am

I can’t believe Gerry has been banned. Jeesh.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

The question was about scientists. The deleted list was various televangelists.

psychodelict is no longer with us ~ud admin

Hmm... I wonder.

Could be that was exactly the post intended by Psychodelict - announcing his/her own bannination. The post Psychodelict was created to post. The only post by that author anywhere on UD. The phrase "ud admin" has only appeared once previously at UD. The loudspeaker in the ceiling wasn't even on.

A disposable, one-use puppet.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Now THAT is some proper Nixplanatory formating. Very important in this fallen age.

Bill - Given your incredible success with the Nixplanitory filter, The evil atheist overlords have ask me to offer you:

PROJECT 404: Threads that are no more

I ACCEPT.

What did I just accept?

404s will be harder to track - no mere perusal of fossils embedded in the tard pits will do. Google caches can't be relied upon. Routine snapshots of UD will be needed to recover the text of 404'd threads for posteriority.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

The question was about scientists. The deleted list was various televangelists.

psychodelict is no longer with us ~ud admin

Hmm... I wonder.

Could be that was exactly the post intended by Psychodelict - announcing his/her own bannination. The post Psychodelict was created to post. The only post by that author anywhere on UD. The phrase "ud admin" has only appeared once previously at UD. The loudspeaker in the ceiling wasn't even on.

A disposable, one-use puppet.

My puppet Dog_of_War was banned by "ud admin", but alas, the thread was destroyed.

Now THAT is some proper Nixplanatory formating. Very important in this fallen age.

Bill - Given your incredible success with the Nixplanitory filter, The evil atheist overlords have ask me to offer you:

PROJECT 404: Threads that are no more

I ACCEPT.

What did I just accept?

404s will be harder to track - no mere perusal of fossils embedded in the tard pits will do. Google caches can't be relied upon. Routine snapshots of UD will be needed to recover the text of 404'd threads for posteriority.

I has a hint for you, brave elf prince:After 'The Adventure of the Disappearing ERV', I found that Yahoo cache is superior to that of Google.

i always figured dog of war was J-Dog. thanks for the heads up blipey, you were just clowning around.

what if you really really knew who the cast of characters was over there. would you still read?

Yes and no, as with most things.

I would probably read less more often. IOW, I would read more for technical interest, sort of like I direct a show. However, I would probably not do what I do now: read it slavishly for a few days and then get to a point where I don't read it at all for a couple of weeks.

No-one said is was going to be easy. That's why the atheist-overlords picked Bill. He may activate any sleeper agents on this board. Bills clearance has been upped to triple O status. (Bob only has one...)

For what it is worth many accounts get silenced instead of banned. I have had two accounts where instead of banning me they took away my ability to post anything. I am still logged in and I can type in the comments box but when I hit "submit" (or whatever it is) the comments never show up. So although I have not been formally banned, I can no longer post there. I wonder how many under the radar "bans" like this happen on a daily basis.

Frost:My point was simply that it would be absolutely possible for me to obtain a PhD in Geography without gaining any knowledge that would make me any more qualified to talk about Quantum or string theory than the average man in the street. In essence, my qualification is worthless in such a context. So the headline might as well be 31,000 random members of the public don’t believe climate change will be harmful...

I sincerely hope you have somewhere else to comment because you’re no longer welcome here. -ds

The discussion, now headless, runs 'round the barnyard:

11Frost12258505/18/20082:33 am

Freemind said...

You act as if I didn’t understand your point but I spoke directly to it....

12Frost12258505/18/20082:41 am

I also don’t have time to respond to all of your nonsensical statements above. I find your views completely redundant of the stupefying mainstream media and public at large. I wish we didn’t have your “balance” here at this site UD. I prefer 100% clear thinking to a perceived fair and balanced 50% clear thinking 50% liberal propaganda....

13Frost12258505/18/20082:50 am

Also there is no consensus on global warming because it isn’t happening! It got colder last year (though the pro global warmign crowed tried to deny it) and it is projected to trend significantly colder for the next 10 to 15 years....

ht: Bob O'H

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington